Formal Objection to Questions 1 and 2; Abstention on Question 3

Question 1: NO

Rationale: 
i concur with almost every point made by terje bless in the Formal 
Objection archived at: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0583.html 

in addition, i am greatly disturbed by the implications of the 
question, in light of the copyright claims on HTML5 and WF2 by a 
number of developers.  we are supposed to be evolving HTML4x into 
something better, not something proprietary, which can then be 
implemented unilaterally, thereby pushing the HTML WG in the 
direction of previous revisions to HTML prior to HTML4x -- the agenda 
of implementors drove the development of the language so that it is 
open to misuse, and then -- when corrections are suggested -- insist 
that it is imperative that a vendor-neutral standards setting body 
preserve and protect clearly underformed and malformed markup. 

Question 2: NO

Rationale: 
i would prefer if we develop Canonical HTML -- that is, the bedrock 
document upon which all dialects of XHTML and XML will hitherforth 
reference; therefore, i think we should drop the numbers (especially 
if this is to be the final iteration of HTML); why not just call it 
what it is:  HTML -- more specifically, Canonical HTML 

Question 3: ABSTAIN

Rationale: 
i am abstaining from this vote until Questions 1 and 2 are decided.

gregory j. rosmaita
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, 
not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of 
plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
                         -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
-------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
UBATS - United Blind Advocates for Talking Signs: http://ubats.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 23:01:28 UTC